In the 1913 case of D.E. Foote & Company, Incorporated v. Stanley, Comptroller of the State of Maryland, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over taxation laws in Maryland. The plaintiff was an out-of-state corporation that sold goods to customers within Maryland but did not maintain any offices or employees there; instead it shipped its products directly from New York via common carriers or mail. The state comptroller assessed taxes on these sales under a law requiring all corporations doing business within the state to pay an annual tax based on their capital stock value and gross receipts earned in-state. The company argued this violated both due process and commerce clause protections because they were not physically present nor had sufficient contacts with the state for it to impose such taxes. However, the court disagreed stating that physical presence wasn't necessary for taxing purposes if economic benefits are derived by conducting business activities within a jurisdiction's boundaries even without having actual presence there. Thus, despite being incorporated elsewhere and operating primarily outside of Maryland’s borders, D.E Foote & Co., Inc., was held liable for paying taxes as per local laws since they engaged in commercial transactions inside those limits which constituted 'doing business' according to prevailing legal interpretations at that time.

The dissenting opinion in the case of D.E. Foote & Company, Incorporated v. Stanley, Comptroller of the State of Maryland argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding interstate commerce and taxation. The dissent contended that a state cannot impose a tax on an out-of-state corporation for goods sold within its borders if those goods were manufactured and shipped from another state because it would interfere with interstate commerce. They believed this principle should apply even when the company has established offices or agents within the taxing state to facilitate sales transactions. In their view, allowing such taxes could lead to multiple states claiming jurisdiction over a single transaction and imposing cumulative burdens on businesses engaged in interstate trade - something they felt was contrary to both constitutional principles and economic efficiency.